Epstein Secrets

neral explanations" that disclosure would impair or chill deliberations alone do not satisfy the foreseeable harm standard. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 375 F. Supp. 3d 93, 100 (D.D.C. 2019); see also N.Y. Times Co v. Dep't of Health and Human Sews., 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6267, at *30-31 (S.D.N.Y. J

nforcement purposes" because they were created "in the exercise of BOP's statutory authority to detain arrested individuals." (Supplemental Decl. of Kara Christenson, ECF No. 39 [hereinafter "Christenson Supp. Decl."], at ¶ 29.) But this sweeping application of Exemption 7(A) would effectively shield every BOP r

neral explanations" that disclosure would impair or chill deliberations alone do not satisfy the foreseeable harm standard. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 375 F. Supp. 3d 93, 100 (D.D.C. 2019); see also N.Y. Times Co v. Dep't of Health and Human Sews., 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6267, at *30-31 (S.D.N.Y. J

nforcement purposes" because they were created "in the exercise of BOP's statutory authority to detain arrested individuals." (Supplemental Decl. of Kara Christenson, ECF No. 39 [hereinafter "Christenson Supp. Decl."], at ¶ 29.) But this sweeping application of Exemption 7(A) would effectively shield every BOP r

neral explanations" that disclosure would impair or chill deliberations alone do not satisfy the foreseeable harm standard. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, 375 F. Supp. 3d 93, 100 (D.D.C. 2019); see also N.Y. Times Co v. Dep't of Health and Human Sews., 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6267, at *30-31 (S.D.N.Y. J

nforcement purposes" because they were created "in the exercise of BOP's statutory authority to detain arrested individuals." (Supplemental Decl. of Kara Christenson, ECF No. 39 [hereinafter "Christenson Supp. Decl."], at ¶ 29.) But this sweeping application of Exemption 7(A) would effectively shield every BOP r